VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2012 › High Court of Delhi

Union of India & Ors v. Balwinder Singh

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
18 May 2012
Bench
Rajiv Sahai Endlawauthor
Case no.
LPA 551/2011

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MAY 18, 2012 pk

Case details

Parties and counsel

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA No. 551 OF 2011 Judgment Reserved on: 30.04.2012 % Judgment Delivered on: 18.05.2012 UOI & OTHERS . . . APPELLANTS Through : Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Virender Mehta, Adv. VERSUS BALWINDER SINGH AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. for Respondent No.1 CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: 1. This intra court appeal is filed by the Union of India impugning the judgment dated 29th April, 2011 given by a learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein whereby compensation of `50,000/- along with litigation expenses of `5,000/- are awarded in favour of the respondent No.1 with direction to the appellants to pay the same. There is also a direction that documents of the respondent No.1 which were seized by the appellants be also returned, if not already done. The prayers made in the petition give some reflection of the grievance of the respondent No.1 made in the writ petition filed by him and we reproduce these prayers: "(a) Issue writ, order or direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/order/direction thereby directing the respondent no.2 & 3 to release all documents of the petitioner seized on 22.2.2010. (b) to direct respondent no.2 and 4 to make all necessary arrangements for departure of the petitioner to Spain as he has been deported and document seized for no fault of his. (c) to issue an order/direction to the respondent no.2, 3 and 4 to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/0 to the petitioner for the mental agony and torture he has suffered due to the illegal acts of the respondents no.2, 3 & 4." 2. The documents have since been returned. The only dispute is as to whether the learned Single Judge was right in awarding the compensation of `50,000/- along with litigation expenses of `5,000/-. 3. The respondent No.1 is an Indian citizen who holds an Indian passport issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Jalandhar. This passport was issued on 17th February, 2006 and is valid up to 16th January, 2016. He got a job at Jarona in Spain in the year 2007. On getting this job, he applied for work visa with the Embassy of Spain at New Delhi. His documents were verified by the Embassy and certificate dated 6th July, 2007 was issued on 6th July, 2007 reading as under: "There is no adverse information against Shri/Smt./Kum. BALWINDER SINGH S/o, D/o, W/o Jit Singh SPOUSE NAME….HOLDER OF Indian Passport No. F6537221 issued at Jalandhar on 17th Feb 06 which would render him/her ineligible for the grant of travel facilities including visa for SPAIN." 4. Thereafter, at the instance of the Embassy of Spain, the respondent underwent medical test and after completion of all formalities, work visa was issued to him on 16th April, 2008 for three months which was further extended up to 2011. On the strength of these documents, respondent went to Spain and worked as a peon in a shop at Jarona in Spain. During this period, he was also registered under the Social Security Scheme in Spain and was given tax identity number as well. After working for some time, he wanted to visit India to meet his family. He thus returned to India on 25th November, 2009. 5. After staying for about three months, with a view to re-join his duties in Spain, the respondent No.1 boarded a flight from Indira Gandhi International Airport at New Delhi on 21st February, 2010. This flight was up to Brussels (Belgium). On reaching Brussels, when the respondent No.1 was taking connected flight, the officials of Jet Airways began questioning him in English and Belgium language. As per him, being an illiterate, he could not answer the queries appropriately though he was able to communicate with them that he had a valid work permit. Still he was kept in illegal confinement at the cells and was not allowed to fly to Spain. Instead, on the next date, i.e. 22nd February, 2010, he was deporte

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.